PROP. 36: TREATMENT NOT JAIL IN DRUG CASES

Proposition 36, which would require treatment instead of jail for most
first-time and second-time drug offenders, has gained strong backing from
elected officials in San Francisco.

But most politicians around the state, from Gov. Davis to Sen. Dianne
Feinstein to the Butte County Board of Supervisors, either oppose it or
have remained neutral.

Supporters said the measure correctly shifts the state's priorities from
incarceration of nonviolent drug users to treatment by changing the law and
allocating money for rehabilitation programs to back it up.

"You cannot solve the drug problem by just jailing people," said District
Attorney Terence Hallinan, the most prominent prosecutor to endorse Prop.
36. "Some people should be behind bars. But if you want to stop
drug-related crime, treatment has to be the cornerstone. Proposition 36
will give treatment tremendous momentum in California."

In San Francisco, where 78 percent of voters supported legalizing medical
marijuana in 1996, Prop. 36 is endorsed by Mayor Willie Brown, Sheriff
Michael Hennessey, Public Defender Jeff Brown and the Board of Supervisors.

But opponents fear Prop. 36 will dangerously undercut the power of
prosecutors, judges, police and probation officers.

"Proposition 36 will destroy California's highly effective drug court
system and effectively decriminalize hard core drugs in California," said
state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat from Hayward.

Supporters disagree, saying that currently only 5 percent of drug offenders
end up in drug court. They said the initiative will expand treatment
options by allocating $120 million a year in new funds.

Under Prop. 36, nonviolent defendants would be treated instead of
incarcerated after they are convicted of drug possession for the first or
second time. People convicted of violent offenses or other major crimes in
conjunction with drug possession could still be sent to prison.

There are currently 20,116 inmates in state prison for drug possession, or
12.4 percent of the inmate population. That number has grown from 6,432 (or
6.4 percent) in 1991, according to the California Department of Corrections.

The California legislative analyst estimates Prop. 36 would save the state
$100 million to $150 million annually by diverting people out of the
prisons. Statewide, it could further save local governments about $40
million annually in jail and court costs.

"As many as 24,000 nonviolent drug possession offenders per year would be
diverted to drug treatment in the community instead of being sent to state
prison," the nonpartisan report said.

Supporters and opponents have quoted from a recent Rand Corp. study that
notes flaws in the initiative but also sees benefits. That report agrees
the measure would get drug treatment for thousands of offenders who need
it. But the study by the Santa Monica think tank emphasizes that treatment
programs need to be carefully monitored for effectiveness.

"One of the big unknowns with Proposition 36 offenders is how long they
will stay in treatment, particularly if they are receiving low oversight,"
the Rand study said.

Treatment costs about $4,000 per person for a typical year instead of the
$20,000 annually to keep a drug user in prison, according to state estimates.

The measure was sponsored by New York financier George Soros, who also
funded the 1996 initiative that legalized medical marijuana. The
billionaire is perhaps the nation's most prominent skeptic of the war on
drugs. He has also helped finance drug-related initiatives in
Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah and Nevada. Soros and the two other
contributors, Peter Lewis, CEO of the Progressive Corp., and John Sperling,
CEO of the Apollo Group, gave more than $1million to Prop. 36.

The measure is ahead in polls. An Examiner/KTVU poll taken Oct. 22-25
showed it supported by 52 percent of voters to 37 percent opposed with the
rest undecided. That number is down from a month earlier when it drew 56
percent support in the same poll. Both polls had a margin of error of plus
or minus 3.5 percentage points.

On the other side, the most prominent opponent is not a real life
politician but actor Martin Sheen, who plays the president in the hit TV
drama "West Wing."

Sheen said his opposition is driven by the experience of his son, Charlie,
who nearly died of a drug overdose in 1998.

"It purports a very simplistic solution to a very, very complex problem,"
Sheen said. "It cannot possibly work."

Opponents say drug offenders need the threat of prison to make
rehabilitation work. They say Prop. 36 would change the law in a way that
would actually undermine rehabilitation by reducing the ability of judges
to order jail time for people who flunk out of treatment.

The opposition is led by a coalition of law enforcement groups,
prosecutors, business associations, prison guards and some health
professionals. Elected officials opposed to Prop. 36 include a mix of
Democrats and Republicans. The biggest contributor to the opposition
campaign is Alex Spanos, owner of the San Diego Chargers and a major
Republican Party benefactor, who gave $100,000.

"Proposition 36 would send a signal to all drug addicts and potential
addicts that there are no consequences for illegal drug use," Feinstein said.

"This proposition is not about drug treatment - it's about legalization of
dangerous narcotics," she said in a statement Friday. "We need to give law
enforcement and judges the tools they need to encourage users to quit drugs
with both treatment and the threat of incarceration - one that will not
work without the other."

Like Sheen and Lockyer, Feinstein argues that Prop. 36 is the first step
toward drug legalization.

But Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Campbell, who is challenging Feinstein in the
Senate race, said Prop. 36 opponents ignore the failures of the war on
drugs of the past 30 years.

"The truth is, the drug war has failed," Campbell said. "You can't just
look at this problem and say: Do more of the same."

Campbell also challenged opponents to think about the difference treatment
can make for a person. "If it were your child, you'd prefer treatment over
jail," he said.